@Blaze25z Sorry if I misunderstood the situation. I commend you for leaving posts you dont like...and yes, it is right to remove those with profanity or filthy communications in them.
prairemark has attempted to discredit Dr MacArthur, personally..., and, by attempting to introduce false Roman doctrine in contrast.... Prentending to understand and know church history , he fails miserabaly in his foolish quest.. May God open the blind eyes, which have never truly seen....
@Blaze25z My concerns were not personal attacks. MacArthur has some real problems with intellectual integrity in how he handles certain passages in the Bible that seem to disagree with his theology...if a discussion board cannot include things like this, then it isnt really a discussion board.
@Blaze25zThe comments I leave here re church history are to correct something false or biased.What I say is easily verifiable and when I present truth I dont feel I have failed even if it is rejected
@Blaze25z I have been wrong a lot. I was a committed Fundamentalist with Anabaptist beliefs much as John MacArthur was. I believed this was the Historic Biblical Christianity and that it was the faith of the apostles and of the early church fathers. But after studying them I found their beliefs were more like the Catholics than like the Fundamentalists. I am sure I am wrong about things now...yet I do know that the early Church Fathers did not understand the Bible as MacArthur does.
@Blaze25z Two things to mention here. One is we need to know what they believed. Their beliefs were not Baptist or Fundamentalist, but Catholic. Honesty is important to a Christian and I was not taught the honest truth about them when I was a fundamentalist. The church fathers were mostly ignored, but when they were mentioned I was not taught what their beliefs were. Secondly...men like Ignatius and Polycarp were students of St John. They were his friend, students, and later coworkers.
@prairiemark While te writings of the Church Fathers are not part of the Sacred Word they do carry great weight because they were close to the apostles in time,and some of them were friends of the apostles.They explained what the apostles meant.Their beliefs were consistant with the scriptures....Baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ at communion and a strong role of Bishops. Doesnt it seem strange to you that the early Christians were not fundamentalists...but Catholic?
@Blaze25z I am not sure how well versed you are in the church fathers. At a minimum you seem to dismiss them as does MacArthur. When you do that you end up with a religion not rooted in the apostalic teachings, but something invented much later.....and that is what American Fundamentalism is. If we reject the teachings of the first and second century Christians and accept Darbyism that arose in the early 1800s, it makes for a strange view of church history. It doesnt make any sense.
@Blaze25z Show me any first or second century Christian with a docrinal statement the same as MacArthurs.....it cant be done. Look at the Didache, at Against Heresies or other early works....they were more like the Catholics.
@Blaze25z I guess some would say if I repeat what the early church fathers believed....what those that set at the feet of the apostles believed....what the early creeds taught...then I am "introducing" false doctrine. The truth is, Christian truth has been the same since apostolic times. American Fundamentalism is very unlike the early Christian faith. It was invented later. Yet many followers of men like John MacArthur or David Jeremiah are not told this.
I don't get this thinking...the pope is quoted as saying, "muslims worship the 1 true god,", & yet, also believed that salvation could only be obtained thru catholic church. Really, this guy was severely confused.
@springbokbullietjie The Bible and the early Christians presented Catholci faith....infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ at communion for example was taught by Christ and by the Apostle John in John 6. Johns students...Polycarp and St Ignatius continued to teach that at communion the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.....when the Baptist faith was invented hundreds of years later they did not include the historic beliefs of Christianity.
@prairiemark I might add it has nothing to do with denominations, that's the biggest hoax ever its about doing things according to Gods word, do you think when you pass on God will say right such and such over this side?? Its about following Gods word, support yourself using the bible, 1 the refraining of marriage of priests, 2the rosary, 3praying to idols, 4the pope as 'the vicar of Christ'? 5the apocrypha? Do you even take the book of Revelation seriously that John wrote?
@springbokbullietjie Evangelicals like to throw a lot of stuff up against the wall when talking about Catholics. I used to do it too. I was an evangelical fundamentalist for many years and I sounded a lot like you. First...a challenge to you. Read the writings of the early church fathers and ask yourself....is what they believed more like the Baptists or like the Catholics....Early Christians were more like the Catholics!!
@prairiemark Yes I take the book of Revelation seriously. It speaks of the saints in heaven taking prayers from the saints on earth to God...it speaks of Mary being crowned the queen of heaven. Do you take it seriously. Luther and many of the early Protestants wanted to take it out of the Bible...as they did with the apocrypha...which had been part of the Bible for over a thousand years.....Seriously...have you ever read the early church fathers?
@prairiemark haha give me the verse that talks about mary as the queen of heaven? you cant there's no evidence for your claims in the bible, and i can show you by comparing the true word against the apocrypha how it completely nullifies it and renders it useless.
@springbokbullietjie You have shown by your questions you dont understand Catholic theology....or the Bible very well. Have you even looked through a Catholic book of Catechism or spent time studying the Bible with Catholics before you come online with the kind of stuff you are saying? Do you know the dueterocanoncial books were part of the Bible for over a thousand years before they were taken out by some of the reformers who didnt like what they said?
@springbokbullietjie Again you havent shown me you know anything about the Bible except the partial truths you have been indocrinated with. Do I have to show you everything in the Bible? Shouldnt I expect you to do your homework before you come online with a bunch of garbage....most of what is not true and just shows your ignorance?
@prairiemark I have a devout catholic friend which i showed her carefully using the apocrypha and nearly persuaded her to get out of that stuff just like paul nearly persuaded agrippa to become a christian in acts, buddy you have not given any scripture at all, GIVE ME BIBLE SCRIPTURE. Im strictly Bible only because its the word of God....there are no contradictions in the bible pal. I tried to find them and there was none at all, you do err knot knowing the scriptures.
@springbokbullietjie I studied the Bible extensively when I was a fundamentalist Baptist. In fact I am three credits short of a degree in Biblical theology. I also was involved in a Navigators Bible memorization program. I have been in and led Bible studies in college and church groups for decades. So guy, please use your head when you post....dont just make false statements about me....You show little knowledge of theology or church history.
@springbokbullietjie Simply using isolated Bible verses as you do for proof texts proves nothing except that your are indoctrinated in a certain way. I try not to do it although I am capable of doing it very well.
@prairiemark Thank you very much, you have just proved that you don't like using the bible as proof, im indoctrinated by the holy spirit, and when somone comes along with false teachings that are unbiblical i will use the the bible as my spiritual sword to fend them off and keep Gods word from becoming defiled with heresies, and you have not once backed yourself up with the bible, just another proof that you most likely don't get any inspiration from it. John the baptist was a baptist.
@springbokbullietjie That is all you have...John the Baptist was a Baptist.....were any of the church fathers baptists? Did you know that both Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch beleived in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ at communion.....as did their teacher and friend....St John the Apostle....read John 6.
@springbokbullietjie Proof texting has no logical validity to prove anything...It involves holding a tradition dear to your heart...then going to the Bible and finding all the verses you can that might seem to support it. There are many other better ways of studying the Bible. I try to avoid proof texting.
@springbokbullietjie So.....John the Baptist was a baptist ....but he believed that the Body and Blood of Christ was present at communion.....and his star students Polycarp and Ignatius went around the Christian word teaching infant baptism.
@medusa210562 Polycarp and Ignatius were the students of St John the Apostle. They sat under his teaching and later worked with him. They repeated the same teachings as St John did. We must listen to them. If they were wrong, then St John was wrong and the gospel is false.
@prairiemark maybe you are right. But I don't have to believe anyone but the scripture. Ultimately, Anyone out of the scripture can be wrong. And way are we talking about it any way. If anyone contradicts the scripture I don't care what their name is. If they contradict St John what does it matter. Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock" There are 2 more texts similar to this one in the new testament. also see 17:11
@medusa210562 The savage wolves talked about in Acts were not the students of John who were pastors. If we say that the early church fathers were wrong we have nothing left.
@prairiemark It doesnt make sense to say that those that knew the apostles and taught there doctrine were wrong and the truth was gone for hundreds of years until it was rediscovered.
@prairiemark God communicates to me beside the written word. But you know I cannot use that doctrinally between me and you because we are both fallible humans. Simple
@prairiemark hang on doesn't God communicate to you as well? It is the Holy Spirit that tell you what is right and wrong. Doesn't your conscience have anything to do with your crhistian believes. I think you know what I mean but you are so desperate to debate with me you are starting to play games.
@prairiemark NOW THINK VERY HARD IF IT IS NOT "SOLA SCRIPTURA" WHY DICSUSS FROM THE BIBLE. why not just get to the end and tell me end every other protestant. "YOU MUST JUST OBEY" and persecute us. It will happen. you see the believes of the catholic church lean toward persecution, as they reflect oppression of conscience,
Not believing in Sola Scriptura doesnt mean that the Bible is not authoratative or inspired.Sola Scriptura is wrong because there are other ways God communicates to us besides written words
@prairiemark The apostles did not believe in Sola Scriptura. Look at II Thes 2:15 Stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by written letter.
@prairiemark we don't need anything but the bible. The church was made of man. Some Catholics were saints some were not saints. Some popes were saints some were of the devil. The papacy in the dark ages was based on power.
@medusa210562 We do need things other than the Bible. We need to know something about the culture and the historical setting to know what the Bible is talking about. The setting of the OT was largely Hebrew agrarian and N.T. Roman and Greek. Knowing how the early church operated shows us how they understood the Gospel. Especially those who knew the apostles. They were closer to the events than we are in culture and time. We gain by knowing them. We lose by not knowing of them.
@prairiemark When I study the bible I study some of the coltural circumstances STRICTLY DIRECTLY TO THE PERIOD, AND THE EXACT WORDS IN THE BIBLE. If the bible was not the only source of truth. Then you and I could not discuss, debate. etc etc. It would just be me and another human. God took care of that.
@medusa210562 The Bible is the Word of God and it is authoritative.However it is not the only source of truth.God communicates to us in various ways,through the witness of Nature, through the experiences of other Christians, through the councils and creeds that dealt with dangerous heresies in the church.He also used the Church to bring us the Bible,to collect and copy the ancient manucripts, and to decide which books should be considered Sacred Word. The Catholic Church brought us the Bible.
@springbokbullietjie Are you aware that modern evangelical theology is not like the faith of the apostles...and the generation of Christians that came after the apostles. Baptist theology was invented very late in church history. There were not baptists in the early days.
@prairiemark In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. The events of the Reformation brought the Roman Catholic heresies into question and they had not scriptural authority for teachings. However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be "sacred" books.
@springbokbullietjie It is obvious you have not seriously considered what the Catholic church teaches or how church history has unfolded. Do you think the Dueterocanoncial books were first part of the Bible after Trent?
@prairiemark Nope because i have the bible, and i care what the bible teaches because its inspired, not some system that martyred millions of true believers during the papal inquisition. I say bible and you say catholic.... what's more important catholocism or the bible? whats more important following God or allowing yourself to be exposed by catholic teaching.
@springbokbullietjie Read up on the inquisition. It was a terrible time in church history, but one that we have very good records on. There are trial records on each persons trial in the spanish inquisition. About 1% of the persons tried were executed. And a few percentage were subject to lesser punishments. Most (about 90%) were not convicted of the crimes they were charged with and released. Between 2,500 and 5000 people were executed. ....We have computerized records now..Why the lies?
@springbokbullietjie Catholic teaching is Biblical teaching. It represents historic Biblical Christianity. Baptist theology was not a part of the early church ...it was invented later...never a found its way into a historic creed of christianity....never part of any early liturgy....
@springbokbullietjie A good place to start if you have any interest at all in the truth about the Inquisition is a series of investigative videos by BBC. It is not done by specifically Christian people, but done to gain accurate historcial perspective on the Inquisition.... I think the name is The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition I-V
Do you think it is OK to lie about a denomination that you dont like. You have said a number of lies about me and about Catholicism. Isnt that sin?
@springbokbullietjie Luther didnt like Jude or James because they dont jive with his theology. When he translated the Bible he grouped the books of the NT he didnt like at the end of the NT. Jude 21...Keep yourselves in Gods love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. You see our obedience of faith determines where we spend eternity, not just our profession
@prairiemark There will be alot of christians, that will say to Jesus, we did many mighty works in your name, and he will say depart from me i never knew you. You know if Jesus came back today the world would crucify him again, and the pope would probably at the front of the line accusing him.
@springbokbullietjie My time is worth a lot to me. If you are willing to listen to the series of five tapes on the inquisition I will be willing to talk to you some more. Then we can talk about some issues one by one. So far you have not shown interest in rationally discussing anything. Throwing a lot of wild and untrue accusations against the wall isnt a discussion. You made a lot of unsubstantiated false claims...some almost bizarre. Dont you think that is wrong?
@springbokbullietjie Comments like that are completely out of line and show a strong anti Catholic bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that. The pope constantly tells the Christians to be ready for Christs second coming and in the liturgy we mention it several times each worship service.
@springbokbullietjie Guess you have never read the church fathers.....so you dont know what the pupils of the Apostles believed...those who sat under the teaching of the writers of scripture. How can you claim their beliefs have no value?
@prairiemark (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled. impossible For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom 3:23
@springbokbullietjie Many people have put together groups of verses from the Bible that seem to show contradictions or errors as well....does that nulify the Bible from Being the Word of God....Did Absolom really have hair that weighed dozens of lbs...is a bat a bird, does a rabbit chew its cud? Do you think what you are doing...grabbing a verse here and there out of context and pretending you are an expert is intellectually respectable?
@prairiemark Well im an expert in sharing the Gospel and rebuking those who try to defend heresies specially when they are put in the bible, because God has given it me to do so. whether im an expert or not doesn't really matter what you think, what matters here is your life, If you were deceived you wouldn't know it so you go to the bible to see whether your deceived, you refuse to back yourself up biblically because you just cant.
@springbokbullietjie You perceive yourself to be an expert. Are you ordained? Did you finish and organized course of study? Who is over you in the Lord? Are you working under an Elder or Bishop to guide you...or are you making more divisions by your arrogance and ignorance? With the Baptists...each person is a private contractor for God
@prairiemark Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law (honouring parents, etc.) which is directly refuted by the Bible: “A man is not justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16). In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as saying that “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (verse 21).
@springbokbullietjie The proverbs says a lot about honoring your parents...and living a righteous life...there are four or five kinds of righteousness presented in te Proverbs. James clearly states that righteousness with God comes by works and not by faith alone. Of course Catholics believe we cannot be saved without Christ shedding his blood on the cross....but there is an element of obedience too. What about the parables that talk about the unrighteous servents cast into outer darkness?
@springbokbullietjie You start out with a basic error. When we listen to someone who is telling us something....first we have to ask if what he says is true.
@prairiemark yes you go to the Bible for that, because all ive given you is mostly bible verses Amen, and thats how i know whether your true or not, are you living and honouring God according to the Bible, no you put other theology first, the Bible isn't some sort of divinci code unlocking mechanism, its a living word that teaches those who have the holy spirit, you want me to read all these other stuff, read the Bible man. If my memory served me right pope john p 2 said evolution is compatible.
@springbokbullietjie I just read some of our interaction of a month ago again. I hope and pray thay you have made an effort to find out what Catholics beleive, and to refrain from the many falsehoods you presented as facts. Please read the early church fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius who were students of St John. Read Clement, read Justin Martyr and Iraneous. These men who were taught by the apostles or those who were taught by the apostles represented true Catholic teaching.
@prairiemark I dont need to do anything really, your religion will destroy itself, because first of all the doctrine is opposite to the Bible,Luke 13. v23Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. There is only one way to heaven my friend and a million ways to hell.
@springbokbullietjie You mande choice. You will remain ignorant of the truth. You refuse to reconsider your patently false view of the the inquisition.You refuse to look at what first and second century Christianity believed...Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneus.You tell me I am ignorant of the Biible although likely I have studied it a lot more than you, both in academia and personally.You are left with your recently invented religion and a haughty attitude.You are free to put your proof texts together
@prairiemark, Yes i am free and i want you to be free with me, at least i can put truth and proof text together, whereas you cant although you say you have studied the bible so much, which i think is contradicting yourself, because there's nothing you can accuse me with other than im not using your catholic doctrine, which is not apart of the bible. If you have studied the bible then you will know there's no contradictions in it.
@springbokbullietjie I will leave you with a Bible verse: Study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that doesnt need to be ashamed...rightly dividing the word of truth. You have not even got to first base on this yet guy. Ignorance of how the early saints understood the Bible is not a virtue. But ever more troubling is your arrogance and resistance to reconsidering your false beliefs. I wish you well my friend.
@prairiemark Amen to that, great verse. real inspiration in that. I love the book of Timothy. il leave you with one too 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. v7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
@springbokbullietjie I wish you well. God Bless you. I cling to the faith "once delivered" as Jude says. Dont be caught hanging onto a faith invented fifteen hundred years later. Bye now.
@prairiemark 1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
@prairiemark 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
@springbokbullietjie 4John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
@prairiemark catholocism has 1.3 billion followers, many shall seek to enter in? Theres something blocking you from getting through to God, its the deception of the theology your under, its pointless to say im ignorant, because i only use the Bible. Im under Gods word. and i have been trying to use it show you how your religion ignores or goes against it. Jesus Christ is my saviour not my religion. John 3:16
@springbokbullietjie You are trying to lead, but you dont have the knowlege to lead me or anyone else. Sure a knowledge of Bible verses is important, but they must be put together in a way that makes sense with history and the church. Protestants believe that a layman can pick up the Bible and by himself/herself figure out what it means to them. They construct their private interpretations and what do we have...many thousands of contradictory sects.
@prairiemark When I was a Baptist I went through three church splits. And the people who caused the splits were like you. They had proof texts and a haughty attitude that their understanding was the correct one.
@springbokbullietjie You represent the approach and the attitudes that have resulted in over 20,000 sects and subsects of Protestantism. I wish you well my friend. It doesnt have to be like it is..
@prairiemark Wow and you think i have bad knowledge of scripture.....all we need is the Gospel to lead someone to truth..ehm i dont want to sound harsh but did you not know that?
@springbokbullietjie The trouble is you dont know what Biblical theology is. And I am not sure you understand what Godspeed is either. Whe I tell you God bless you it means not that I approve of your manmade theology but that I want God to guide you to the true Biblical truth...the faith of the Apostles found in the Bible, and the faith of the early believers before protestant and anabaptist theology was invented. Guy you are so full of yourself God cant guide you.
@springbokbullietjie The Bible speaks the truth. The vulnerability of the Bible is the knowledge,skills and honesty of the interpreter. In this case we have a person (MacArthur) who falls short in honestly interpreting the Bible....and I think he lacks a lot of knowledge of Church history and Catholicism. Gods word is vulnerable to bad hermeneutics.
Roman Catholics, if you are not taking to heart everything Mr. McCarthur is saying, then you are surely blind and deaf!!!!! The Reformers recognized the errors of the Roman Church and the Pope just by studying scripture. The Bible spells it out plainly. Read Daniel 7 and Revelation 17-22. Come up out of the great WHORE of Babylon..........the kingdom that rests on seven Hills.......the Roman CATHOLIC Church! Those who remain within her confines will perish with her!
@proverbs1824 Christ and the Apostles like St John taught the same things as the Catholic Church. The early chruch fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius taught the same faith as present day Catholics do. Beware of what you believe...find out if your faith is the ancient faith of the apostles and church fathers, or if you you have a changed version.
@springbokbullietjie I dont study Plato, but greek philosophy influenced early Christians (google St Paul and Plato). Plato believed in transcendant truth. Aristotle is often considered more of an influence on men like St Thomas Aquinas....the dual nature of the universe...good vs evil and so forth. The context of the post you responded to was that I believed in the faith of the Apostles...and those that follow them. This historic faith is more Catholic than Evangelical. Study it.
@prairiemark You are starting to ask some good questions...even though you state it as a statement of authority with arrogance. ("The root of your theology is from plato"). How did Plato influence New Testament thinking and writers is a valid question..A better question is what did the earliest Christians believe?...and why is it very much like Catholicism and very unlike American evangelicalism? The more you study the Bible with the early church the more you become Catholic.
@Dystopiologist I did my research. The bible was (the books we have today) used through out the early church, and by the end of the first century all the writing were recognized as the authoritative word of God. However, the OLD testament was already in exsitence (it was complied by the Jews), and at first was the only written scripture used by the earliest of Christians. The New Testament was used orally, first by the Apostles (until about 176 a.d.) After this, the written letters and
@Dystopiologist epistles were used widely by the early Christians. They were passed around from church to church (congregation to congregation). Irenaius was the first recognized authority of scripture (NT). He was a pupil of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. The books we used today were settled by Eusebius, and then by the middle of the 3rd Century, they were finalized and recognized as the authorative and inspired word of God. In 397a.d., The canons as we know them today, were
@Dystopiologist finalized and settled at the council of Carthage. However, then came the Reformation, and out of the Reformation adjustments were made, including the rejection of the Apocrypha as uninspired and not authoritative. There's more, really. It is very interesting how our present day bible came into existence. But, it is not the workings of the Catholic church as we understand the Catholic church of today. The early Roman church was not heretical. It wasn't until Constantine
@Dystopiologist came into the picture that things began to change, and the formation of what we now know as the ROMAN CATHOLIC church began to evolve.........and, it began to move away from sound biblical doctrine.
@Dystopiologist This history I just gave you is really just an abbreviated synopsis. There's more to it. Just not enough room to present it all. Many others were involved in the putting together of the Bible. But, it started with the Jews (old testament) and then the Apostles (new testament) first orally, then written down in letters and epistles, and finally gathered together by Eusebius.
My Bible contains 73 books - exactly the same number canonized in 393, and exactly the same number the Gutenberg Bible had, and even the first King James Bible. My Bible has been the same for 1600 years.
@Dystopiologist 66 books is to correct number. You are using the ROMAN Catholic bible which contains the Apocrypha....which is NOT inspired scripture.
@Dystopiologist Luther followed the Jamnian (Palestinian) Canon which did not include those books. Even in the early church, not everyone took the deuterocanonical books as divinely inspired. they could be useful just like many Christian literary is useful, but not divinely inspired. But the point is, none of those book affect any central theology of Christianity. But the things that the pope have done is COMPLETELY unsupported by the bible (deuterocanical version or not).
I'm very curious - you accept the authority of the Church to choose the books of the Bible way before Constantine, yet you accept Luther's decision to remove six books that conflict with his new doctrine.
Do you reject the book of James too as he recommended? He didn't like Hebrews or Revelation either (nor did Calvin). Do you recognize these books as canonical?
@Dystopiologist --Ive found "Christians" on youtube that reject every letter written by Paul because they believe he was not a true apostle. Crazy, eh?
@Dystopiologist so many ppl are claiming that Luther removed the book to support his "theology". PLEASE explain to me what theology is in jeopardy here?? What are the divine secrets revealed in the 7 deuterocanonical books that can change Christian Theology? The bottom line here is, the catholic church has gone over the bend, doing things and believing in traditions and practices that are NOT supported/justified/promoted by any version of the bible.
@proverbs1824 The first seven translations of the King James Bible contained the dueterocanonical books. They had been included in all the early bibles before the reformation. They were removed from the KJV by Puritan printers in the 1620s.
Luther liked to take books out of the BibleHe disliked the apocrapha and tried to minimize these books by grouping them at the end of the OT. Same in the NT he grouped the books he didnt like at the end,Jude,James,Jude,Revelations.He changed the Bible!
@Dystopiologist That the deuterocanonical books are contained in the septuagint or any other bible for that matter does not automatically mean that the people of that day considered the deuterocanonical books CANON, or isnpired. As Jerome himself found when he studied the issue. But Sola Ecclesia for you is good i guess. Go kiss some Qurans like the antichrist that you call Holy Father did, and perhaps you'll get a sense that there is something wrong going on with your cult.
@proverbs1824 Even Luther had to acknowledge the Catholic church brought is the Bible. Faithful Catholic scribes copied the manuscripts of the Bible. The literature to be included in the Cannon of Scripture was chosen by the Catholic Church. What was not chosen was left out.
@Dystopiologist I have listened to MacArthur since the 1970s. A relative of mine worked for him in the 70s and 80s. I have listened to hundreds of hours of his lectures over 30 or 40 years. I used to think he was just ignorant of church history .and other tranditions. Now I have concluded he is a deciever. If you look at how he deals with the Charismatic issues...I Cor 14:2....he consiously changes the translation from He that prays in tongues prays to God...to read "prays to a false God."
@sonofmary1 You've twisted the meaning of that scripture................it is CHRIST who is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth!!!!! He is the Rock upon which the Church is built...........the Church is of Christ........not Rome! The Roman Church is a damnable CULT!!! Come up out of her or perish!
I am not twisting anything. I am quoting scripture. Your interpretation is your interpretation, and Peter makes it clear that no scripture is a matter of private interpretation. Just answer me on question:
Why do you consider the Bible to be inspired literature?
@sonofmary1 Jesus is the foundation of Faith and then after Jesus left the earth,the church becomes the Pillar and foundation of truth as given by Jesus and the 12 Apostles. The church can add or take away anything that Jesus or the 12 Apostles taught. That is why the unbiblical Traditions of the RCC are not valid and create issues with other Christians. The Church is not Catholic it is catholic for all who confess Jesus as Lord and do His will in their lives.
Dr. John. i wonder when the Pope ever was the Catholic church. You give the impression that the Pope mind and publications are the true picture of the church. the council of Trent was when everyone was still the catholic church.
How about your ordination of homosexuals and lesbians as priest and bishops. Be careful not to determine and conclude those who will go to heaven.
You give the impression that the grace of God is unfounded as far as Catholics are concern
What troubles me most about macarthur is his church is not some 20 member storefront thing, but a mega-church in which MANY more people are lied to and thus decieved.
same letters in satanic in vatican except s & v which i bleve stand for V-ile S-nake
Catholic priest are gay, pedophile or homosexual and most catholics are in it cause they can cuss, steal, fornicate, commit adultry, lie and then just go say a few hail marys and THINK they gonna slip by GODS JUDGMENT..."there will be weeping and nashing of teeth" know your doctrine is correct before you leave this place. Preach Pastor Macarthur.
John knows perfectly well that not everything the pope says is infallible. Quote; "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know." Benedict XVI. Also there are conditions for ex cathedra teaching. As I know, no popes exercised ex cathedra infallibility when they declared wars...... So John Paul II did not contradict the papal infallibility when he opologised for the killings and forced conversions.........
Did he contradict papal infallibility when he extracted the Arch Bishop of Boston from a situation in which accountability was pressing down on him and relieved him with a promotion to a higher position in Rome?
Or how about the many parishoners who were swooped out of the country & relieved of accountability when taken to safety elsewhere?
Their safety causes an equilibrium in those places where they're taken to by increasing the danger factor for the youth
John is trying to help not hurt he doesn't want people to be deceived into thinking they are safe when indeed are in danger of hells fire no one gets to the Father except through Jesus Christ not mary or a priest Jesus is the High Priest & mediator between God & man 1st Tim 2:5 Mt23:9 says to call no man father on the earth how plain is that?
That's dumb. Abraham is always referred to as Father in Scripture. so are we to believe that Scripture is contradicting itself. No we are to believe that you are dumb. Stuck on stupid as the wise man said. Paul also wanted us to consider him a father in faith. Paul also said that there are difficult things in Scripture that wicked men will twist (John Macarthor) to their own destruction and the destruction of those that follow after them.(his congregants)
Now I invite you to use your head for a second. God told Abraham - "from your "seed" I will make a great nation"
Being that Catholic clergy are celibate... or at least, are supposedly celibate. What connotation do you think is taken from the attribution of "father"?
A biological one, or a spiritual one?
It is the attribution of spiritual "father" to a mere man that is forbidden
Why do you suppose you didn't know these things? The Roman church has a history of outlawing even reading. Does that sound like people who wish to lead a learned, knowledgeable congregation?
Knowledgeable people are difficult to unjustly obtain great wealth from
Guess how the Romans became the wealthiest institution on Earth? Don't know? That's exactly how they like it
Well if you have 2000 years you can do pritty well.
Property values do tend to go up. You upstart denominations really have to put the squeeze on your congregants to make a living wage for the good preachers and there are a lot of them. Our Priest take vows of poverty and are a lot cheaper to maintain. I would like to help them because they have the truth and not a lot of bigotry like your money grubbers Pastors.
every Heretic will call himself a true believer. Those who will go about saying "Lord Lord are many but they will one day be told "depart from me. I never knew you" That could mean Hell or a stint in Purgatory. Our Lord did say that some sins could be forgiven "in the next life' certainly that wouldn't be in Hell nor would Heaven be an appropriate Venue for the forgiveness of sins.
Paul stated in Scripture to hold to those traditions both spoken and written. These are not the "traditions of Men" but those things bound on Earth. Every thing that this peevish man says about Catholicism is a twisted lie. "the Catholic Controversy" is on line. they are 2 page defensive tracks that had a devastatingly powerful effect reevangelizing the Chablis region in France after the Reformation. Read it if you dare. Macarthor is a snake and you need an antidote to his brainwashing.
pat u constantly quote and interpret the bible in an incorrect fashion. i suggest you take some hermeneutics classes before you present more texts from scripture. essentially you seem more loyal to the Roman church than you are to God and His word. so no matter what evidence is presented your mind demands that the roman church cannot be wrong therefore you have a preexisting bias which blinds you to Gods truth, how sad.
I accept all of Sacred Scripture I do not follow those who tossed out entire books Received by Our Lord when He walked among us. But I suppose Luther and all the other ex catholic Priests knew better than Our Lord. when they abridged Holy Scripture after 1500 years. I believe Jesus was correct when he promised that "the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church"
Luther, Calvin and all the Reformers had the very same OT Canon listing that was held by Saint Jerome and many other church fathers. It was Trent that was out of step historically on it's OT Canon listing. The OT Canon is the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.
The word tradition used in 2 Thes 2:15 refers to the Gospel which is now recorded in Scripture. It is not unknown teachings which we cant presently find in Scripture.
What Mr. Mac Arthur can't seem to grasp is that God is sovereign and if He pleases, He will save whomever He wishes to in ways only known to Him. Mystical, isn't it.
By the way, no one living here on earth is saved. You will not find a theologian in history interpreting the Bible that way until Martin Luther in 1517 and after.
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blaze25z Sorry if I misunderstood the situation. I commend you for leaving posts you dont like...and yes, it is right to remove those with profanity or filthy communications in them.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
prairemark has attempted to discredit Dr MacArthur, personally..., and, by attempting to introduce false Roman doctrine in contrast.... Prentending to understand and know church history , he fails miserabaly in his foolish quest.. May God open the blind eyes, which have never truly seen....
Blaze25z 2 weeks ago
@Blaze25z My concerns were not personal attacks. MacArthur has some real problems with intellectual integrity in how he handles certain passages in the Bible that seem to disagree with his theology...if a discussion board cannot include things like this, then it isnt really a discussion board.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blaze25z When I was a fundamentalist Baptist I studied some church history, but the protestant books were usually biased and somewhat untruthful.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@Blaze25zThe comments I leave here re church history are to correct something false or biased.What I say is easily verifiable and when I present truth I dont feel I have failed even if it is rejected
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark Interesting.... You seem to be saying you are never wrong about anything..
Blaze25z 1 week ago
@Blaze25z I have been wrong a lot. I was a committed Fundamentalist with Anabaptist beliefs much as John MacArthur was. I believed this was the Historic Biblical Christianity and that it was the faith of the apostles and of the early church fathers. But after studying them I found their beliefs were more like the Catholics than like the Fundamentalists. I am sure I am wrong about things now...yet I do know that the early Church Fathers did not understand the Bible as MacArthur does.
prairiemark 1 week ago
@prairiemark You seem to count the early church fathers as absolute authorities..
Blaze25z 1 week ago
@Blaze25z Two things to mention here. One is we need to know what they believed. Their beliefs were not Baptist or Fundamentalist, but Catholic. Honesty is important to a Christian and I was not taught the honest truth about them when I was a fundamentalist. The church fathers were mostly ignored, but when they were mentioned I was not taught what their beliefs were. Secondly...men like Ignatius and Polycarp were students of St John. They were his friend, students, and later coworkers.
prairiemark 1 week ago
@prairiemark While te writings of the Church Fathers are not part of the Sacred Word they do carry great weight because they were close to the apostles in time,and some of them were friends of the apostles.They explained what the apostles meant.Their beliefs were consistant with the scriptures....Baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ at communion and a strong role of Bishops. Doesnt it seem strange to you that the early Christians were not fundamentalists...but Catholic?
prairiemark 1 week ago
@prairiemark So far, you have not said anything that I am already aware of.... What`s your point?
Blaze25z 1 week ago
@Blaze25z I am not sure how well versed you are in the church fathers. At a minimum you seem to dismiss them as does MacArthur. When you do that you end up with a religion not rooted in the apostalic teachings, but something invented much later.....and that is what American Fundamentalism is. If we reject the teachings of the first and second century Christians and accept Darbyism that arose in the early 1800s, it makes for a strange view of church history. It doesnt make any sense.
prairiemark 1 week ago
@prairiemark So far, you have not said anything that I am already aware of.... What`s your point?
Blaze25z 1 week ago
@Blaze25z Show me any first or second century Christian with a docrinal statement the same as MacArthurs.....it cant be done. Look at the Didache, at Against Heresies or other early works....they were more like the Catholics.
prairiemark 1 week ago
@Blaze25z I guess some would say if I repeat what the early church fathers believed....what those that set at the feet of the apostles believed....what the early creeds taught...then I am "introducing" false doctrine. The truth is, Christian truth has been the same since apostolic times. American Fundamentalism is very unlike the early Christian faith. It was invented later. Yet many followers of men like John MacArthur or David Jeremiah are not told this.
prairiemark 1 week ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
the only one twisting things is this guy!!
Sexonthepiano 6 months ago
I don't get this thinking...the pope is quoted as saying, "muslims worship the 1 true god,", & yet, also believed that salvation could only be obtained thru catholic church. Really, this guy was severely confused.
88momart 8 months ago
@88momart The question for you is.....is MacArthur correctly representing the Catholic church? He is not.
prairiemark 3 months ago
@prairiemark Is the Bible correctly representing the catholic church should be your question, it is not therefore the Bible must be wrong?
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie The Bible and the early Christians presented Catholci faith....infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ at communion for example was taught by Christ and by the Apostle John in John 6. Johns students...Polycarp and St Ignatius continued to teach that at communion the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.....when the Baptist faith was invented hundreds of years later they did not include the historic beliefs of Christianity.
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@prairiemark I might add it has nothing to do with denominations, that's the biggest hoax ever its about doing things according to Gods word, do you think when you pass on God will say right such and such over this side?? Its about following Gods word, support yourself using the bible, 1 the refraining of marriage of priests, 2the rosary, 3praying to idols, 4the pope as 'the vicar of Christ'? 5the apocrypha? Do you even take the book of Revelation seriously that John wrote?
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Evangelicals like to throw a lot of stuff up against the wall when talking about Catholics. I used to do it too. I was an evangelical fundamentalist for many years and I sounded a lot like you. First...a challenge to you. Read the writings of the early church fathers and ask yourself....is what they believed more like the Baptists or like the Catholics....Early Christians were more like the Catholics!!
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Yes I take the book of Revelation seriously. It speaks of the saints in heaven taking prayers from the saints on earth to God...it speaks of Mary being crowned the queen of heaven. Do you take it seriously. Luther and many of the early Protestants wanted to take it out of the Bible...as they did with the apocrypha...which had been part of the Bible for over a thousand years.....Seriously...have you ever read the early church fathers?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark haha give me the verse that talks about mary as the queen of heaven? you cant there's no evidence for your claims in the bible, and i can show you by comparing the true word against the apocrypha how it completely nullifies it and renders it useless.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You have shown by your questions you dont understand Catholic theology....or the Bible very well. Have you even looked through a Catholic book of Catechism or spent time studying the Bible with Catholics before you come online with the kind of stuff you are saying? Do you know the dueterocanoncial books were part of the Bible for over a thousand years before they were taken out by some of the reformers who didnt like what they said?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Again you havent shown me you know anything about the Bible except the partial truths you have been indocrinated with. Do I have to show you everything in the Bible? Shouldnt I expect you to do your homework before you come online with a bunch of garbage....most of what is not true and just shows your ignorance?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark I have a devout catholic friend which i showed her carefully using the apocrypha and nearly persuaded her to get out of that stuff just like paul nearly persuaded agrippa to become a christian in acts, buddy you have not given any scripture at all, GIVE ME BIBLE SCRIPTURE. Im strictly Bible only because its the word of God....there are no contradictions in the bible pal. I tried to find them and there was none at all, you do err knot knowing the scriptures.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie I studied the Bible extensively when I was a fundamentalist Baptist. In fact I am three credits short of a degree in Biblical theology. I also was involved in a Navigators Bible memorization program. I have been in and led Bible studies in college and church groups for decades. So guy, please use your head when you post....dont just make false statements about me....You show little knowledge of theology or church history.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Simply using isolated Bible verses as you do for proof texts proves nothing except that your are indoctrinated in a certain way. I try not to do it although I am capable of doing it very well.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Thank you very much, you have just proved that you don't like using the bible as proof, im indoctrinated by the holy spirit, and when somone comes along with false teachings that are unbiblical i will use the the bible as my spiritual sword to fend them off and keep Gods word from becoming defiled with heresies, and you have not once backed yourself up with the bible, just another proof that you most likely don't get any inspiration from it. John the baptist was a baptist.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie That is all you have...John the Baptist was a Baptist.....were any of the church fathers baptists? Did you know that both Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch beleived in infant baptism and the real presence of Christ at communion.....as did their teacher and friend....St John the Apostle....read John 6.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Proof texting has no logical validity to prove anything...It involves holding a tradition dear to your heart...then going to the Bible and finding all the verses you can that might seem to support it. There are many other better ways of studying the Bible. I try to avoid proof texting.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie So.....John the Baptist was a baptist ....but he believed that the Body and Blood of Christ was present at communion.....and his star students Polycarp and Ignatius went around the Christian word teaching infant baptism.
prairiemark 3 weeks ago
@prairiemark don't trust any man, don't trust me or the pope or polycart or Ignatius. Trust the scripture only.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@medusa210562 Polycarp and Ignatius were the students of St John the Apostle. They sat under his teaching and later worked with him. They repeated the same teachings as St John did. We must listen to them. If they were wrong, then St John was wrong and the gospel is false.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark maybe you are right. But I don't have to believe anyone but the scripture. Ultimately, Anyone out of the scripture can be wrong. And way are we talking about it any way. If anyone contradicts the scripture I don't care what their name is. If they contradict St John what does it matter. Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock" There are 2 more texts similar to this one in the new testament. also see 17:11
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@medusa210562 The savage wolves talked about in Acts were not the students of John who were pastors. If we say that the early church fathers were wrong we have nothing left.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark It doesnt make sense to say that those that knew the apostles and taught there doctrine were wrong and the truth was gone for hundreds of years until it was rediscovered.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark God communicates to me beside the written word. But you know I cannot use that doctrinally between me and you because we are both fallible humans. Simple
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@medusa210562 If God communicates to you outside of the written word, then you do not follow Sola Scriptura.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark hang on doesn't God communicate to you as well? It is the Holy Spirit that tell you what is right and wrong. Doesn't your conscience have anything to do with your crhistian believes. I think you know what I mean but you are so desperate to debate with me you are starting to play games.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark NOW THINK VERY HARD IF IT IS NOT "SOLA SCRIPTURA" WHY DICSUSS FROM THE BIBLE. why not just get to the end and tell me end every other protestant. "YOU MUST JUST OBEY" and persecute us. It will happen. you see the believes of the catholic church lean toward persecution, as they reflect oppression of conscience,
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
Not believing in Sola Scriptura doesnt mean that the Bible is not authoratative or inspired.Sola Scriptura is wrong because there are other ways God communicates to us besides written words
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark The apostles did not believe in Sola Scriptura. Look at II Thes 2:15 Stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by written letter.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark we don't need anything but the bible. The church was made of man. Some Catholics were saints some were not saints. Some popes were saints some were of the devil. The papacy in the dark ages was based on power.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@medusa210562 We do need things other than the Bible. We need to know something about the culture and the historical setting to know what the Bible is talking about. The setting of the OT was largely Hebrew agrarian and N.T. Roman and Greek. Knowing how the early church operated shows us how they understood the Gospel. Especially those who knew the apostles. They were closer to the events than we are in culture and time. We gain by knowing them. We lose by not knowing of them.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark When I study the bible I study some of the coltural circumstances STRICTLY DIRECTLY TO THE PERIOD, AND THE EXACT WORDS IN THE BIBLE. If the bible was not the only source of truth. Then you and I could not discuss, debate. etc etc. It would just be me and another human. God took care of that.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@medusa210562 The Bible is the Word of God and it is authoritative.However it is not the only source of truth.God communicates to us in various ways,through the witness of Nature, through the experiences of other Christians, through the councils and creeds that dealt with dangerous heresies in the church.He also used the Church to bring us the Bible,to collect and copy the ancient manucripts, and to decide which books should be considered Sacred Word. The Catholic Church brought us the Bible.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@springbokbullietjie Are you aware that modern evangelical theology is not like the faith of the apostles...and the generation of Christians that came after the apostles. Baptist theology was invented very late in church history. There were not baptists in the early days.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. The events of the Reformation brought the Roman Catholic heresies into question and they had not scriptural authority for teachings. However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be "sacred" books.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie It is obvious you have not seriously considered what the Catholic church teaches or how church history has unfolded. Do you think the Dueterocanoncial books were first part of the Bible after Trent?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Nope because i have the bible, and i care what the bible teaches because its inspired, not some system that martyred millions of true believers during the papal inquisition. I say bible and you say catholic.... what's more important catholocism or the bible? whats more important following God or allowing yourself to be exposed by catholic teaching.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Read up on the inquisition. It was a terrible time in church history, but one that we have very good records on. There are trial records on each persons trial in the spanish inquisition. About 1% of the persons tried were executed. And a few percentage were subject to lesser punishments. Most (about 90%) were not convicted of the crimes they were charged with and released. Between 2,500 and 5000 people were executed. ....We have computerized records now..Why the lies?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Catholic teaching is Biblical teaching. It represents historic Biblical Christianity. Baptist theology was not a part of the early church ...it was invented later...never a found its way into a historic creed of christianity....never part of any early liturgy....
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie A good place to start if you have any interest at all in the truth about the Inquisition is a series of investigative videos by BBC. It is not done by specifically Christian people, but done to gain accurate historcial perspective on the Inquisition.... I think the name is The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition I-V
Do you think it is OK to lie about a denomination that you dont like. You have said a number of lies about me and about Catholicism. Isnt that sin?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Does 4,000 equal "millions?" You are simply wrong.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Luther didnt like Jude or James because they dont jive with his theology. When he translated the Bible he grouped the books of the NT he didnt like at the end of the NT. Jude 21...Keep yourselves in Gods love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. You see our obedience of faith determines where we spend eternity, not just our profession
prairiemark 3 weeks ago
@prairiemark our profession doens't save us grace alone does. Yes we need faith and works but neither have merits.
medusa210562 2 weeks ago
@prairiemark There will be alot of christians, that will say to Jesus, we did many mighty works in your name, and he will say depart from me i never knew you. You know if Jesus came back today the world would crucify him again, and the pope would probably at the front of the line accusing him.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie My time is worth a lot to me. If you are willing to listen to the series of five tapes on the inquisition I will be willing to talk to you some more. Then we can talk about some issues one by one. So far you have not shown interest in rationally discussing anything. Throwing a lot of wild and untrue accusations against the wall isnt a discussion. You made a lot of unsubstantiated false claims...some almost bizarre. Dont you think that is wrong?
prairiemark 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@springbokbullietjie Comments like that are completely out of line and show a strong anti Catholic bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that. The pope constantly tells the Christians to be ready for Christs second coming and in the liturgy we mention it several times each worship service.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
@springbokbullietjie Guess you have never read the church fathers.....so you dont know what the pupils of the Apostles believed...those who sat under the teaching of the writers of scripture. How can you claim their beliefs have no value?
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
Comment removed
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled. impossible For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom 3:23
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie Many people have put together groups of verses from the Bible that seem to show contradictions or errors as well....does that nulify the Bible from Being the Word of God....Did Absolom really have hair that weighed dozens of lbs...is a bat a bird, does a rabbit chew its cud? Do you think what you are doing...grabbing a verse here and there out of context and pretending you are an expert is intellectually respectable?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Well im an expert in sharing the Gospel and rebuking those who try to defend heresies specially when they are put in the bible, because God has given it me to do so. whether im an expert or not doesn't really matter what you think, what matters here is your life, If you were deceived you wouldn't know it so you go to the bible to see whether your deceived, you refuse to back yourself up biblically because you just cant.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You perceive yourself to be an expert. Are you ordained? Did you finish and organized course of study? Who is over you in the Lord? Are you working under an Elder or Bishop to guide you...or are you making more divisions by your arrogance and ignorance? With the Baptists...each person is a private contractor for God
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law (honouring parents, etc.) which is directly refuted by the Bible: “A man is not justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16). In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as saying that “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (verse 21).
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie The proverbs says a lot about honoring your parents...and living a righteous life...there are four or five kinds of righteousness presented in te Proverbs. James clearly states that righteousness with God comes by works and not by faith alone. Of course Catholics believe we cannot be saved without Christ shedding his blood on the cross....but there is an element of obedience too. What about the parables that talk about the unrighteous servents cast into outer darkness?
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You start out with a basic error. When we listen to someone who is telling us something....first we have to ask if what he says is true.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark yes you go to the Bible for that, because all ive given you is mostly bible verses Amen, and thats how i know whether your true or not, are you living and honouring God according to the Bible, no you put other theology first, the Bible isn't some sort of divinci code unlocking mechanism, its a living word that teaches those who have the holy spirit, you want me to read all these other stuff, read the Bible man. If my memory served me right pope john p 2 said evolution is compatible.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie I just read some of our interaction of a month ago again. I hope and pray thay you have made an effort to find out what Catholics beleive, and to refrain from the many falsehoods you presented as facts. Please read the early church fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius who were students of St John. Read Clement, read Justin Martyr and Iraneous. These men who were taught by the apostles or those who were taught by the apostles represented true Catholic teaching.
prairiemark 3 weeks ago
@prairiemark I dont need to do anything really, your religion will destroy itself, because first of all the doctrine is opposite to the Bible,Luke 13. v23Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. There is only one way to heaven my friend and a million ways to hell.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You mande choice. You will remain ignorant of the truth. You refuse to reconsider your patently false view of the the inquisition.You refuse to look at what first and second century Christianity believed...Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraneus.You tell me I am ignorant of the Biible although likely I have studied it a lot more than you, both in academia and personally.You are left with your recently invented religion and a haughty attitude.You are free to put your proof texts together
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark, Yes i am free and i want you to be free with me, at least i can put truth and proof text together, whereas you cant although you say you have studied the bible so much, which i think is contradicting yourself, because there's nothing you can accuse me with other than im not using your catholic doctrine, which is not apart of the bible. If you have studied the bible then you will know there's no contradictions in it.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie I will leave you with a Bible verse: Study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that doesnt need to be ashamed...rightly dividing the word of truth. You have not even got to first base on this yet guy. Ignorance of how the early saints understood the Bible is not a virtue. But ever more troubling is your arrogance and resistance to reconsidering your false beliefs. I wish you well my friend.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Amen to that, great verse. real inspiration in that. I love the book of Timothy. il leave you with one too 1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. v7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie I wish you well. God Bless you. I cling to the faith "once delivered" as Jude says. Dont be caught hanging onto a faith invented fifteen hundred years later. Bye now.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark 1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@prairiemark 2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie 4John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@prairiemark catholocism has 1.3 billion followers, many shall seek to enter in? Theres something blocking you from getting through to God, its the deception of the theology your under, its pointless to say im ignorant, because i only use the Bible. Im under Gods word. and i have been trying to use it show you how your religion ignores or goes against it. Jesus Christ is my saviour not my religion. John 3:16
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You are trying to lead, but you dont have the knowlege to lead me or anyone else. Sure a knowledge of Bible verses is important, but they must be put together in a way that makes sense with history and the church. Protestants believe that a layman can pick up the Bible and by himself/herself figure out what it means to them. They construct their private interpretations and what do we have...many thousands of contradictory sects.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark When I was a Baptist I went through three church splits. And the people who caused the splits were like you. They had proof texts and a haughty attitude that their understanding was the correct one.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Yes baptists are ridiculously strict and think they are correct i couldn't agree more with you. I really dislike the attitude there too.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie You represent the approach and the attitudes that have resulted in over 20,000 sects and subsects of Protestantism. I wish you well my friend. It doesnt have to be like it is..
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark if there's contradictions in your bible then it shows you have a corrupted translation, which there are many of.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@prairiemark Wow and you think i have bad knowledge of scripture.....all we need is the Gospel to lead someone to truth..ehm i dont want to sound harsh but did you not know that?
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie ???? God Bless you and goodnight.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark Sorry by the authority of the Bible im not supposed to bid you Godspeed when you come with anything other than what the Bible says. bye
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie The trouble is you dont know what Biblical theology is. And I am not sure you understand what Godspeed is either. Whe I tell you God bless you it means not that I approve of your manmade theology but that I want God to guide you to the true Biblical truth...the faith of the Apostles found in the Bible, and the faith of the early believers before protestant and anabaptist theology was invented. Guy you are so full of yourself God cant guide you.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie The Bible speaks the truth. The vulnerability of the Bible is the knowledge,skills and honesty of the interpreter. In this case we have a person (MacArthur) who falls short in honestly interpreting the Bible....and I think he lacks a lot of knowledge of Church history and Catholicism. Gods word is vulnerable to bad hermeneutics.
prairiemark 2 weeks ago
green mamber the brother of the back mamber
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
Not quite. Learn your history.
proverbs1824 1 year ago
Roman Catholics, if you are not taking to heart everything Mr. McCarthur is saying, then you are surely blind and deaf!!!!! The Reformers recognized the errors of the Roman Church and the Pope just by studying scripture. The Bible spells it out plainly. Read Daniel 7 and Revelation 17-22. Come up out of the great WHORE of Babylon..........the kingdom that rests on seven Hills.......the Roman CATHOLIC Church! Those who remain within her confines will perish with her!
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 Christ and the Apostles like St John taught the same things as the Catholic Church. The early chruch fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius taught the same faith as present day Catholics do. Beware of what you believe...find out if your faith is the ancient faith of the apostles and church fathers, or if you you have a changed version.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark the root of your theology is from plato.
springbokbullietjie 1 month ago
@springbokbullietjie I dont study Plato, but greek philosophy influenced early Christians (google St Paul and Plato). Plato believed in transcendant truth. Aristotle is often considered more of an influence on men like St Thomas Aquinas....the dual nature of the universe...good vs evil and so forth. The context of the post you responded to was that I believed in the faith of the Apostles...and those that follow them. This historic faith is more Catholic than Evangelical. Study it.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@prairiemark You are starting to ask some good questions...even though you state it as a statement of authority with arrogance. ("The root of your theology is from plato"). How did Plato influence New Testament thinking and writers is a valid question..A better question is what did the earliest Christians believe?...and why is it very much like Catholicism and very unlike American evangelicalism? The more you study the Bible with the early church the more you become Catholic.
prairiemark 1 month ago
Professional liar, this man. He knows better, yet he thinks nothing of twisting Scripture and the teachings of the Church.
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist You are so foolish! The RCC is who is TWISTING scripture! Burn your Catholic bible. It is abominable!
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 Where did the Bible come from?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist God. Not the Catholic Church!
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824,
Exactly when, and how, did God give us the Bible?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist through the profits and God's chosen people (Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc) and the apostles (John, Paul, Peter, etc).
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 When? How?
"through the prophets" is not an answer - even Jesus did not write things down for us.
How do we know which writings are from God and which are not?
Does Johnny Mac make the call? Martin Luther? Perhaps King James?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 Even Protestants (well, educated ones at least) agree that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church my friend.
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist I did my research. The bible was (the books we have today) used through out the early church, and by the end of the first century all the writing were recognized as the authoritative word of God. However, the OLD testament was already in exsitence (it was complied by the Jews), and at first was the only written scripture used by the earliest of Christians. The New Testament was used orally, first by the Apostles (until about 176 a.d.) After this, the written letters and
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist epistles were used widely by the early Christians. They were passed around from church to church (congregation to congregation). Irenaius was the first recognized authority of scripture (NT). He was a pupil of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. The books we used today were settled by Eusebius, and then by the middle of the 3rd Century, they were finalized and recognized as the authorative and inspired word of God. In 397a.d., The canons as we know them today, were
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist finalized and settled at the council of Carthage. However, then came the Reformation, and out of the Reformation adjustments were made, including the rejection of the Apocrypha as uninspired and not authoritative. There's more, really. It is very interesting how our present day bible came into existence. But, it is not the workings of the Catholic church as we understand the Catholic church of today. The early Roman church was not heretical. It wasn't until Constantine
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist came into the picture that things began to change, and the formation of what we now know as the ROMAN CATHOLIC church began to evolve.........and, it began to move away from sound biblical doctrine.
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist This history I just gave you is really just an abbreviated synopsis. There's more to it. Just not enough room to present it all. Many others were involved in the putting together of the Bible. But, it started with the Jews (old testament) and then the Apostles (new testament) first orally, then written down in letters and epistles, and finally gathered together by Eusebius.
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824
My Bible contains 73 books - exactly the same number canonized in 393, and exactly the same number the Gutenberg Bible had, and even the first King James Bible. My Bible has been the same for 1600 years.
How many books does yours have?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist 66 books is to correct number. You are using the ROMAN Catholic bible which contains the Apocrypha....which is NOT inspired scripture.
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824
ALL Christians held it to be inspired for over 1,000 years, until Luther took them out. What authority did he have to do that?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist Luther followed the Jamnian (Palestinian) Canon which did not include those books. Even in the early church, not everyone took the deuterocanonical books as divinely inspired. they could be useful just like many Christian literary is useful, but not divinely inspired. But the point is, none of those book affect any central theology of Christianity. But the things that the pope have done is COMPLETELY unsupported by the bible (deuterocanical version or not).
nanamiyuki 9 months ago
@proverbs1824
I'm very curious - you accept the authority of the Church to choose the books of the Bible way before Constantine, yet you accept Luther's decision to remove six books that conflict with his new doctrine.
Do you reject the book of James too as he recommended? He didn't like Hebrews or Revelation either (nor did Calvin). Do you recognize these books as canonical?
Dystopiologist 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist --Ive found "Christians" on youtube that reject every letter written by Paul because they believe he was not a true apostle. Crazy, eh?
WayOfTheMaster454 1 year ago
@Dystopiologist so many ppl are claiming that Luther removed the book to support his "theology". PLEASE explain to me what theology is in jeopardy here?? What are the divine secrets revealed in the 7 deuterocanonical books that can change Christian Theology? The bottom line here is, the catholic church has gone over the bend, doing things and believing in traditions and practices that are NOT supported/justified/promoted by any version of the bible.
nanamiyuki 9 months ago
@proverbs1824 that's for sure
SuperPatrick777 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 --On what grounds are the Duterocanonicals non-inspired scripture?
WayOfTheMaster454 1 year ago
@proverbs1824 The first seven translations of the King James Bible contained the dueterocanonical books. They had been included in all the early bibles before the reformation. They were removed from the KJV by Puritan printers in the 1620s.
Luther liked to take books out of the BibleHe disliked the apocrapha and tried to minimize these books by grouping them at the end of the OT. Same in the NT he grouped the books he didnt like at the end,Jude,James,Jude,Revelations.He changed the Bible!
prairiemark 1 month ago
@Dystopiologist That the deuterocanonical books are contained in the septuagint or any other bible for that matter does not automatically mean that the people of that day considered the deuterocanonical books CANON, or isnpired. As Jerome himself found when he studied the issue. But Sola Ecclesia for you is good i guess. Go kiss some Qurans like the antichrist that you call Holy Father did, and perhaps you'll get a sense that there is something wrong going on with your cult.
Refutingnonsense 1 year ago 2
@proverbs1824 Even Luther had to acknowledge the Catholic church brought is the Bible. Faithful Catholic scribes copied the manuscripts of the Bible. The literature to be included in the Cannon of Scripture was chosen by the Catholic Church. What was not chosen was left out.
prairiemark 1 month ago
@Dystopiologist I have listened to MacArthur since the 1970s. A relative of mine worked for him in the 70s and 80s. I have listened to hundreds of hours of his lectures over 30 or 40 years. I used to think he was just ignorant of church history .and other tranditions. Now I have concluded he is a deciever. If you look at how he deals with the Charismatic issues...I Cor 14:2....he consiously changes the translation from He that prays in tongues prays to God...to read "prays to a false God."
prairiemark 1 month ago
Start listening to what he says about scripture around 3:55. Ha!! Then read 1st Tim ch 3. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth."
sonofmary1 1 year ago
@sonofmary1 You've twisted the meaning of that scripture................it is CHRIST who is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth!!!!! He is the Rock upon which the Church is built...........the Church is of Christ........not Rome! The Roman Church is a damnable CULT!!! Come up out of her or perish!
proverbs1824 1 year ago
@proverbs1824
I am not twisting anything. I am quoting scripture. Your interpretation is your interpretation, and Peter makes it clear that no scripture is a matter of private interpretation. Just answer me on question:
Why do you consider the Bible to be inspired literature?
sonofmary1 1 year ago
@sonofmary1 Jesus is the foundation of Faith and then after Jesus left the earth,the church becomes the Pillar and foundation of truth as given by Jesus and the 12 Apostles. The church can add or take away anything that Jesus or the 12 Apostles taught. That is why the unbiblical Traditions of the RCC are not valid and create issues with other Christians. The Church is not Catholic it is catholic for all who confess Jesus as Lord and do His will in their lives.
MRGV7373 10 months ago
Comment removed
neilbubbachuck 1 year ago
Dr. John. i wonder when the Pope ever was the Catholic church. You give the impression that the Pope mind and publications are the true picture of the church. the council of Trent was when everyone was still the catholic church.
How about your ordination of homosexuals and lesbians as priest and bishops. Be careful not to determine and conclude those who will go to heaven.
You give the impression that the grace of God is unfounded as far as Catholics are concern
nskoghan 1 year ago
haha they called it the 'dark ages' for a reason. Mary wears no crowns in heaven, she is dead as Napoleon.
makahru 1 year ago
@makahru
Well i suppose then that the catholic belief in the resurrection is something that you do not believe in.
sonofmary1 1 year ago
@sonofmary1 'beliefs' are nonsense. Mary was a credible person if she became born again, and nothing more.
makahru 1 year ago
What troubles me most about macarthur is his church is not some 20 member storefront thing, but a mega-church in which MANY more people are lied to and thus decieved.
AtomicMonster454 2 years ago
Absolutely right. The guy is so dishonest and ignorant God will bring him down-just watch-just like Swaggart,
rickw1100 2 years ago
John MacArthur = EVIL
wiannoboy 2 years ago
@wiannoboy = retard
belugafishgod 1 year ago
S-A-T-A-N-I-C
V-A-T-I-C-A-N
same letters in satanic in vatican except s & v which i bleve stand for V-ile S-nake
Catholic priest are gay, pedophile or homosexual and most catholics are in it cause they can cuss, steal, fornicate, commit adultry, lie and then just go say a few hail marys and THINK they gonna slip by GODS JUDGMENT..."there will be weeping and nashing of teeth" know your doctrine is correct before you leave this place. Preach Pastor Macarthur.
jesusisonlyway 2 years ago
@jesusisonlyway LOL...youre sick
CATHOLICISM RULES !!!!
wiannoboy 2 years ago
John knows perfectly well that not everything the pope says is infallible. Quote; "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know." Benedict XVI. Also there are conditions for ex cathedra teaching. As I know, no popes exercised ex cathedra infallibility when they declared wars...... So John Paul II did not contradict the papal infallibility when he opologised for the killings and forced conversions.........
arnolddao 2 years ago
Did he contradict papal infallibility when he extracted the Arch Bishop of Boston from a situation in which accountability was pressing down on him and relieved him with a promotion to a higher position in Rome?
Or how about the many parishoners who were swooped out of the country & relieved of accountability when taken to safety elsewhere?
Their safety causes an equilibrium in those places where they're taken to by increasing the danger factor for the youth
The "swoop" had to come from Rome!
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
John is trying to help not hurt he doesn't want people to be deceived into thinking they are safe when indeed are in danger of hells fire no one gets to the Father except through Jesus Christ not mary or a priest Jesus is the High Priest & mediator between God & man 1st Tim 2:5 Mt23:9 says to call no man father on the earth how plain is that?
lisagabel 2 years ago
That's dumb. Abraham is always referred to as Father in Scripture. so are we to believe that Scripture is contradicting itself. No we are to believe that you are dumb. Stuck on stupid as the wise man said. Paul also wanted us to consider him a father in faith. Paul also said that there are difficult things in Scripture that wicked men will twist (John Macarthor) to their own destruction and the destruction of those that follow after them.(his congregants)
patfealy 2 years ago
"Father" is indeed attributed to Abraham.
Now I invite you to use your head for a second. God told Abraham - "from your "seed" I will make a great nation"
Being that Catholic clergy are celibate... or at least, are supposedly celibate. What connotation do you think is taken from the attribution of "father"?
A biological one, or a spiritual one?
It is the attribution of spiritual "father" to a mere man that is forbidden
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Why do you suppose you didn't know these things? The Roman church has a history of outlawing even reading. Does that sound like people who wish to lead a learned, knowledgeable congregation?
Knowledgeable people are difficult to unjustly obtain great wealth from
Guess how the Romans became the wealthiest institution on Earth? Don't know? That's exactly how they like it
Chuichupachichi 2 years ago
Well if you have 2000 years you can do pritty well.
Property values do tend to go up. You upstart denominations really have to put the squeeze on your congregants to make a living wage for the good preachers and there are a lot of them. Our Priest take vows of poverty and are a lot cheaper to maintain. I would like to help them because they have the truth and not a lot of bigotry like your money grubbers Pastors.
patfealy 2 years ago
patfealy all true believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit on here love you and are gladly praying that God will reveal Himself to you in Christ
gthumb123 2 years ago
every Heretic will call himself a true believer. Those who will go about saying "Lord Lord are many but they will one day be told "depart from me. I never knew you" That could mean Hell or a stint in Purgatory. Our Lord did say that some sins could be forgiven "in the next life' certainly that wouldn't be in Hell nor would Heaven be an appropriate Venue for the forgiveness of sins.
patfealy 2 years ago
Paul stated in Scripture to hold to those traditions both spoken and written. These are not the "traditions of Men" but those things bound on Earth. Every thing that this peevish man says about Catholicism is a twisted lie. "the Catholic Controversy" is on line. they are 2 page defensive tracks that had a devastatingly powerful effect reevangelizing the Chablis region in France after the Reformation. Read it if you dare. Macarthor is a snake and you need an antidote to his brainwashing.
patfealy 2 years ago
pat u constantly quote and interpret the bible in an incorrect fashion. i suggest you take some hermeneutics classes before you present more texts from scripture. essentially you seem more loyal to the Roman church than you are to God and His word. so no matter what evidence is presented your mind demands that the roman church cannot be wrong therefore you have a preexisting bias which blinds you to Gods truth, how sad.
gthumb123 2 years ago
I accept all of Sacred Scripture I do not follow those who tossed out entire books Received by Our Lord when He walked among us. But I suppose Luther and all the other ex catholic Priests knew better than Our Lord. when they abridged Holy Scripture after 1500 years. I believe Jesus was correct when he promised that "the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church"
patfealy 2 years ago
Luther, Calvin and all the Reformers had the very same OT Canon listing that was held by Saint Jerome and many other church fathers. It was Trent that was out of step historically on it's OT Canon listing. The OT Canon is the Law, the Prophets and the Writings.
NY1054Cool 2 years ago
I agree... he doesn't know how to exegete properly and harmonize other texts.
JustifiedSlave 2 years ago
The word tradition used in 2 Thes 2:15 refers to the Gospel which is now recorded in Scripture. It is not unknown teachings which we cant presently find in Scripture.
NY1054Cool 2 years ago
What Mr. Mac Arthur can't seem to grasp is that God is sovereign and if He pleases, He will save whomever He wishes to in ways only known to Him. Mystical, isn't it.
By the way, no one living here on earth is saved. You will not find a theologian in history interpreting the Bible that way until Martin Luther in 1517 and after.
Guardian1223 2 years ago